iPad

iOS

Jailbreak

Cydia

Although many of the major domain name disputes we've heard about in recent months involve Apple reportedly having to cough up millions for domains they feel entitled to, there is no shortage of domain-related drama in our community too.

Jay Freeman - also known as Saurik among jailbreakers - is recognized the world over as the man, the myth, the legend behind Cydia. Now, the creator of this jailbreaking juggernaut is pursuing in court that which should legally be his - Cydia.com, the digital territory that Freeman asserts should be his domain.

According to the legal documents pertinent to Saurik's lawsuit (made available via DomainNameWire), Saurik contends that the current owner of Cydia.com is infringing upon the Cydia brand and trademark. Consequently, Saurik is asking for ownership of Cydia.com.

From DomainNameWire: "The company’s in rem lawsuit against the Cydia.com domain name alleges that the owner of the domain name changed the content of the page from a parked page to one about Apple products after it contacted him."

In addition to Suarik's bid for the Cydia.com domain, his company - Saurikit LLC - is seeking damages for legal fees.

Sue them to stop from running a web site that might claim to be related saurik's software. NOT to FORCE them to sell something that they own and do not want to sell.

Should have check into the domain name before you named your software.

LOL. If you register a mark and don't use it or stop using it, you can lose it. This case illustrates it well: This guy registered the domain name thejaylenoshow.com years before the actual show came out, but the courts ruled in Jay Leno's favor when he filed suit to take over it. Right to Publicity link

A commenter mentioned on pg 1 or 2 that the cydia.com domain has been registered to its current owner since 2002. I wish Saurik would comment on that. We can discuss trademark laws all day but if the commenter is correct, I'd say that makes trademark laws inconsequential in this case. Saurik, why do you feel entitled to the name if they've indeed owned it since before you ever heard of an iPhone? I don't think the jaylenoshow.com story applies here, since jay leno is a person's name while cydia is a word that's older than dirt. I grant you that people might be going to cydia.com by mistake, hoping to learn about your software, but isn't that ultimately because you decided to use the name cydia even though it was already trademarked and in use? You might not be happy about it, but even if they were 'parking' the site to sell it, domain name auctioning is a legitimate business. No less so than, say, hacking a phone and affecting the business of its manufacturer. You want to make free software, for the people, for the noble cause of eliminating apple's restrictions (thanks a lot for the great software, by the way), but that doesn't mean you have the right to just waltz in and bypass someone's legitimate claim to property.

A commenter mentioned on pg 1 or 2 that the cydia.com domain has been registered to its current owner since 2002. I wish Saurik would comment on that. We can discuss trademark laws all day but if the commenter is correct, I'd say that makes trademark laws inconsequential in this case. Saurik, why do you feel entitled to the name if they've indeed owned it since before you ever heard of an iPhone? I don't think the jaylenoshow.com story applies here, since jay leno is a person's name while cydia is a word that's older than dirt. I grant you that people might be going to cydia.com by mistake, hoping to learn about your software, but isn't that ultimately because you decided to use the name cydia even though it was already trademarked and in use? You might not be happy about it, but even if they were 'parking' the site to sell it, domain name auctioning is a legitimate business. No less so than, say, hacking a phone and affecting the business of its manufacturer. You want to make free software, for the people, for the noble cause of eliminating apple's restrictions (thanks a lot for the great software, by the way), but that doesn't mean you have the right to just waltz in and bypass someone's legitimate claim to property.

...does it?

I actually have commented on that numerous times: the issue at hand here is that the people who own this domain have decided to start using it in a way that is confusing, for a very similar purpose to my usage of the term.

In this specific case, Cydia is a software distribution system for Apple platforms (such as the iPhone). cydia.com, which was originally a random "nothing" ad landing page, has slowly decided to become first a body of advertisements of software for Apple platforms, and then a forum for the discussion of software for Apple platforms.

In practice, this forum was even further confusing, as /all/ of the people using it were users who believed they had found an official Cydia website, and were going to get useful support: I actually got users asking if they could be moderators on this site I don't own, I got reporters asking what I was doing with this site I don't own, and I got complaints from people who got bad advice from this site I don't work.

Seriously, when I first started Cydia, I didn't care that I didn't have cydia.com: few people were going to be confused that the random website that was there was mine. When I contacted them later about getting the domain name, though, they started using it against me, seemingly in an attempt to extort me into some larger amount (not that they've given me any actual money-valued quotes I can respond to yet).

The thing you have to realize here is that the general understanding of trademark laws that random Internet commenters have is simply false: somehow, the idea got out there that trademarking a term means you "own it", and "no one else can use it". This is simply not the case.

In fact, multiple people can have a trademark on the same term: yes, multiple trademark registrations for the same word in the same database at the USPTO. The idea is that you cannot use the same name if it will cause confusion.

That is the real goal of the trademark system: it is designed to keep people or companies from deceiving users or customers (whether on purpose, as I believe is the case here, but even if it is on accident).

Therefore, if the people who owned this domain name had decided to use it to run a laundromat, they could totally do that, and there wouldn't even be any confusion: no one would expect users of Cydia who went to cydia.com and saw a website for a laundromat to seriously expect they had found the site they were looking for.

However, in this case, this company simply registers domain names with no intended purpose for them (you claim "already in use": it was not; therefore, they certainly have no trademark, registered or unregistered), and then modified the website /in response to my complaints/ to be /more/ confusing over time.

At first this was an attempt to monetize the site at my expense, and later it was a (failed) attempt to separate themselves from their previous infringement (as they realized that if I had filed a UDRP while they were running those advertisements I would have gotten immediate judgement).

This company seriously just registers names, many of which are typo-squats of existing known brands, like wokia.com. According to domaintools.com, these people own over 37,000 domain names: I am serious here, *thirty-seven THOUSAND domain names*.

These are simply not people who have some legit operation with a name they've been using for a while that I am trying to "take": these are people who just spam the domain name system attempting to prey on people who may later accidentally fall into their minefield.

As much as you guys may WANT to disagree with saurik, he is 100% correct. The law is the law. This is what I specifically do for a living. I spend my entire day finding such infringements for companies. If you own a business, which many of us do not, you HAVE to do everything in your power to make that business successful. Otherwise you end up like the rust of us, working for the man

I recall a lawsuit from Apple records (the Beatles label) suing Apple (the computer company) when they got into music/itunes. Apple records defending their trademark because now there would be possible confusion between Apple records and Apple music/itunes. Anybody know what happened with that?? Similar type of case!

LOL. If you register a mark and don't use it or stop using it, you can lose it. This case illustrates it well: This guy registered the domain name thejaylenoshow.com years before the actual show came out, but the courts ruled in Jay Leno's favor when he filed suit to take over it. Right to Publicity link

Yes and an Apple is a fruit that once fell on Newton's head. If you had a site selling apples, and switched to electronic products when Apple became established guess what would happen. Saurik has exhausted other avenues, this is the next step.

Yes and an Apple is a fruit that once fell on Newton's head. If you had a site selling apples, and switched to electronic products when Apple became established guess what would happen. Saurik has exhausted other avenues, this is the next step.

Have you just ignored all the above posts? Try and post something that's slightly relevant and makes sense.

Still stand by my original comment. Sue them to stop confusion, change the web site focus. You have no right to sue them to take something that they own.

Except that he does and you thinking he doesn't just reinforces that you don't know the law you are commenting about. After working 10+ years in a law office I still get laughs from people who don't "feel" something should be the way it is. Can't help them or you, know the law whether you agree or not, then comment on it.

Except that he does and you thinking he doesn't just reinforces that you don't know the law you are commenting about. After working 10+ years in a law office I still get laughs from people who don't "feel" something should be the way it is. Can't help them or you, know the law whether you agree or not, then comment on it.

Do know the law. I think you need to do a little more research. Cydia the software was established well after the registration of the domain. It's different than the Jay Leno case. Far different. I have been through a couple trademark cases myself in my ventures.

Do know the law. I think you need to do a little more research. Cydia the software was established well after the registration of the domain. It's different than the Jay Leno case. Far different. I have been through a couple trademark cases myself in my ventures.

here is a nice little website that you can educate yourself with about the history of Cydia.com

These people do this for a living, registering domains by the thousands (37,057 to be exact), and there are many out there like them. If you use the internet for more then 5 min you will no doubt run into at least 1. They serve no purpose, they are simply a lottery ticket for the d-bags who do this. If you want to waste A LOT more time getting relevent results when you use google, by all means, support Cykon Technology Limited. As for the rest of us who understand the problem, we hope Jay wins this suit. Its not a David vs. Goliath type of thing. Domain squatters add nothing of value to the internet, only clutter, confusion, and brand dilution.

I Thought if they bought the domain name they own it, isn't it that simple, so in turn if someone wants it they should have to pay for it regardless of the price they put on it(Not trying to be a smart azz just wondering isn't that how it goes).....

In order for this to happen, they need to either entertain my offer or at least give me a response with their quote in it: to date, over the last three years, occasional attempts to negotiate transfer of the domain name in exchange for money has gone nowhere.

Their website has had this message on it for many months now, maybe even a year (I do not remember when they decided to put that up). It certainly has no correlation to anything that I have said in public, or anything I have filed: there would have been no ability for anyone to have attacked them on purpose because of me.

It is my belief that they decided at some point that their website's content (which was mostly users attempting to contact an official Cydia support channel) was damning to their case to hold the domain name, so they decided to take the website down instead.

(For what it's worth, I asked my lawyer why this was included before we filed, and I was told this was standard practice in lawsuits like this. The legal fees are actually quite low, and the general hope is that stuff like this never hits courts anyway: all I really want is for the current owners to actually be willing to negotiate.)

i understand people by names to make money but why cant this guy make a deal?why cause he's trying to get rich off this, which is lame take a few bucks for the name and move on , i dont know personlly but i doubt saurik is a multi millionare , so quit trying to hit it big. or hes just a lame nobody who want to say i own cydia.com to get people to think he is a sombody.............